WASHINGTON – After a 20th century that was perhaps mankind's most violent, all indicators point to a 21st century that will be as bad or worse. Civil wars and new ideological conflicts will multiply. The effectiveness of international forces for peace will wane. And the security of mankind will be the victim caught in the middle. Right?

Wrong, says a report based on a three-year study by a group of international researchers. Contrary to widespread public perception, they find that the world is witnessing fewer wars - and those wars that do occur are killing fewer people.

Naturally I wonder how warfare is defined in the report - if we're replacing organised conflict with other types of conflict, then the image of becoming a more peaceful society isn't really accurate.

Global terror is up year after year since 9/11 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html [Broken]

I do believe wars are less deadly, but that's because the 1900's saw such atrocities (including nuclear bombs being used). With a baseline like that it would be hard to not see an improvement. We didn't even have antibiotics until the 1940's. so many deaths in war during the first half of the century were, likely, compounded by or directly due to infections.

Hopefully we won't use any more horrific "shock and awe" approaches in the middle east. The stratcom report that I linked a few weeks ago makes me think that we just may. (I can't find a great link, but this one will get you some of the details if you missed it last time around - I doubt you did though!)

Since two keys to waging war are disinformation and the control of good information, I think the internet will change everything. The recent actions of the Chinese government in this regard are disappointing to say the least!

One military leader of note [I don't recall who] once stated that one must constantly vilify the enemy or soldiers won't fight. That was easy to do until just about....now.

Well one must wonder exactly what the effects of the internet would be. You do get that freedom Ivan speaks about but theres also the bad side of it. A palestinian or Israeli extremist in say, Switzerland, normally wouldn't have much of an ability to voice his opinions. Now with the internet, he has a much broader, much more accessible audience. What you just hope for is that the correct information out-doing the disinformation.

I'm happy this kinda report finally came out. I remember reading a list of the roughly 25 warzones on Earth right now and remember reading a list showing roughly 30-35 warzones back in the early 90's. Hoped it was showing a good sign but this helps clarify it.

Staff: Mentor

Astronuc said:

I would certainly welcome that news, but is there really a reduction in war or military or paramilitary conflicts in the world?

It probably depends on what scale of conflict we're talking about (geograpically or in casualty count) or what section of the world. It is certainly true, for example, that the West was more peaceful in the second half of the century than the first, on the large scale (no world wars).

The study is more about smaller conflicts before and since the Cold War - I can see that, considering the extent to which the Cold War affected regional and local conflicts. After it ended, there was a power vacuum, but those little local conflicts (especially in eastern Europe) seem to be burning themselves out.

This is an interesting quote:

Other specialists note that the number of democracies in the world is growing. And democracies, recent history suggests, do not go to war against each other.

Why the vast improvement? The report credits an "explosion of efforts" in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The number of UN "preventive diplomacy" missions and government-based "contact groups" aimed at resolving conflicts has risen sharply in the last decade.

Give John Bolton time and he will fix that problem with diplomacy in the UN.

Other specialists note that the number of democracies in the world is growing. And democracies, recent history suggests, do not go to war against each other.

How many democracies plan to adapt a policy of "preemptive war" I wonder?

What you just hope for is that the correct information out-doing the disinformation.

Agreed, however this is a stronger position to be in than when one or a few people could control nearly all of the information. It seems to me that just as many of us worry about Big Brother in this age of information, Big Brother has more to worry about as well.

There was an interesting factoid that was apparently true for a time, and still is with one or two exceptions: No country with a McDonalds has seen war on its soil - war as in the sense of an organized miltary conflict. My theory is that everyone gets too fat to fight.

It probably depends on what scale of conflict we're talking about (geograpically or in casualty count) or what section of the world. It is certainly true, for example, that the West was more peaceful in the second half of the century than the first, on the large scale (no world wars).
The study is more about smaller conflicts before and since the Cold War - I can see that, considering the extent to which the Cold War affected regional and local conflicts. After it ended, there was a power vacuum, but those little local conflicts (especially in eastern Europe) seem to be burning themselves out.
This is an interesting quote:

I disagree with your comments about the west. Just because the west didnt wage its own wars doesn't mean it didnt wage war through proxies, or didnt pursue imperialistic goals (the school of the americas is STILL around).

I got the answer! WW3 is going to happen in the early years of 21th and because of nuclear weapons, the war would end vey soon and no one (except ants of course) will stay alive to start another war. and about killing fewer people? well somehow you could say they just die because of NW and no one kill them in fact.

A war would require at least two countries with a political dispute than could not be solved peacefully and war is the continuation of politics with other means (Von Clausewitz Vom Kriege 1832). A dispute between ideologies not separated by physical boundaries is not defined as war.

However for soldiers to raise the weapons with the objective to kill and start a war you have to motivate them as well as their kin that it's paramount to fight for the survival of the own society. This requires three more elements, strong and determined leadership, an ideology or cult to die for and a relentless indoctrination about enemy image building.

Strong leadership means dictatorship. A democracy is not renowned for starting hostilities albeit that it's not shy to react to hostilities, but you could argue about that. However if there is need to vote for waging war or not, and how to do it, then don't do it. You'd miss the agility to win the war.

It's probably not too hard to find ideologies worth dying for, like pleasing the god-emperor-dictator or defending ones cult or global warming or so. Finally, the indoctrination part requires a relentless misinformation about the terrible enemy who is eager to destroy us, the moment we're not paying attention.

So which element is declining, causing the reduction in real wars between states? Most certainly not misinformation, propaganda for religions or global warming is stronger than ever before. Moreover there are plenty of things to die for. We see that daily in Baghdad and other places. Consequently the waning factor is leadership. There are too many democracies and not enough dictatorships to generate traditional international wars.